A Political Thread pt. 2

[Welsh Exile]

Come on, refusing to acknowledge defeat at elections is practically an American Tradition, in fact Trump's gameplane was basically Abrams gameplan of 2018. Hillary Clinton still calls her defeat a steal, there have been literally hundreds of refusals to concede in US history, running back from the guy who lost to Wilson (can't remember his name but took nearly a month to concede).

 

[dirty harry]

I'm going to save your soul, you don't have to like Trump, but your going to be honest about why you don't lol.

 

[Welsh Exile]

I'm going to save your soul, you don't have to like Trump, but you’re going to be honest about why you don't lol.

I’ve told you a million times. He’s an authoritarian who doesn’t give a **** about the constitution as evidenced by him instigating an insurrection and engaging in a fake elector plot to try and overturn the result of an election. But I suppose you’re going to tell me every president has done that.

 

[Ddanno]

Plus all the rape, noncing, convictions, that sort of ****

Can't you just go to reddit for your troll needs

 

[dirty harry]

I've told you a million times. He's an authoritarian who doesn't give a **** about the constitution as evidenced by him instigating an insurrection and engaging in a fake elector plot to try and overturn the result of an election. But I suppose you're going to tell me every president has done that.

Yes, every president has challenged the constitution, that's why there are safeguards, from the 1st, 2nd, all the way to Reagan petitioning the 22nd, every president has battled with the constitution.

Trump is probably a great safeguard against a few amendments, like the 1st and 2nd, but no president has been a flat out constitutionally and rightly so.

Are you a constitutionalist? Pro every amendment?

Did you know there are 2 countries that are not ratified in the UNCRC? USA and South Sudan... would you advocate on behalf of Trump restricting the constitution to ratify the UNCRC, or to hold steady with the human rights bastion of South Sudan?

With regards to Jan 6th, well he was cleared of any insurrection indictment under the insurrection act a number of times wasn't he?

 

[dirty harry]

Plus all the rape, noncing, convictions, that sort of ****

Can't you just go to reddit for your troll needs

I would edit this comment to make it more appropriate if I was you, it doesn't look good mate.

 

[McTallshort]

It's not a deflection. It's bad faith. When you say things like Trump is acting as any other president you know he's either on a wind up or genuinely delusional.

Remember. He's only here to argue.

 

[Which Tyler]

I'm going to save your soul, you don't have to like Trump, but your going to be honest about why you don't lol.

Touch ironic perhaps...

 

[Welsh Exile]

Yes, every president has challenged the constitution, that's why there are safeguards, from the 1st, 2nd, all the way to Reagan petitioning the 22nd, every president has battled with the constitution.

Trump is probably a great safeguard against a few amendments, like the 1st and 2nd, but no president has been a flat out constitutionally and rightly so.

Are you a constitutionalist? Pro every amendment?

Did you know there are 2 countries that are not ratified in the UNCRC? USA and South Sudan... would you advocate on behalf of Trump restricting the constitution to ratify the UNCRC, or to hold steady with the human rights bastion of South Sudan?

With regards to Jan 6th, well he was cleared of any insurrection indictment under the insurrection act a number of times wasn't he?

Every president challenges the constitution. ******* lol. This is why people say you’re bad faith.

 

[Bada-Bing!]

It's not a deflection. It's bad faith. When you say things like Trump is acting as any other president you know he's either on a wind up or genuinely delusional.

It’s a form of whataboutery and yes bad faith.

Trump is playing on ambiguity of running for a third term. It holds a power in itself.

 

[Welsh Exile]

It's a form of whataboutery and yes bad faith.

Trump is playing on ambiguity of running for a third term. It holds a power in itself.

I don’t think he believes half the **** he says to be honest. He’s proud of the fact he’s a contrarian.

 

[Which Tyler]

Trump wants to emulate Putin and govern US in 'a similar fashion', his former national security adviser says

Fiona Hill told The World With Yalda Hakim that the US and Russian presidents both share the same view of the world as being "divided up among three major powers; Russia, the US and China, with very clear spheres of influence".

news.sky.com

No shit sherlock.


Also this

Virginia Giuffre, Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein accuser, dies by suicide

Giuffre alleged she was trafficked to the Duke of York when she was 17, which he has strenuously denied.

www.bbc.co.uk

Did someone say "Dr David Kelly"?

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

Seriously?

Only 2 FBI directors have been dismissed, Sessions by Clinton and Comey by Trump. So this is in line with Clinton No?

Trump has repeatedly said he had 'no intention' of firing the head of reserve.

Excluding the latest FBI director that Trump pushed out. Sure he wasn't fired but he only resigned because Trump was threatening to fire him. That's 2 FBI directors he has removed, both of whom had been involved in actions against him. Sessions was not involved in action against Clinton.

Trump has said he has no intention of firing the head of the reserve, right after making comments that he should go and repeatedly attacking him and saying his "termination couldn't come soon enough." That's little more than the same tactic he used against the last FBI director.

In a statement from national archives, Trump was one of a long line of every president since Reagan who has misnhandled and misused classified documents, this has been common practice until Biden and Trump were vilified for it.

This is so dishonest. All presidents have mishandled and misused classified documents, he was NOT prosecuted for that. He was prosecuted for, upon his "mishandling" being discovered, repeatedly obstructing attempts to correct it. THAT is what he was prosecuted for and no president has been found with the sheer quantity of documents Trump had and then refused to give them back. This is how Trump's propaganda has retold the story, he was given months to correct the issue with the documents MONTHS of no threats of prosecution. The search and seizure came because he repeatedly and wilfully obstructed all attempts to get the documents back. Other presidents have not done this. Biden had classified documents yes, he then willingly handed them over when it was discovered, he then requested and search and audit of his files to try to correct it. He fully complied with all attempts to get the documents back. These incidents are not the same at all. Had Trump cooperated and given the documents back, they have said there would have been no attempt at prosecution, no FBI raid and it's most likely nobody would have been any the wiser.

this current China US trade war was started by Biden in 2018

No, the war started in Trump's first term. Biden hiked some of them but it was directed against China and only for certain goods, he didn't slap them on the whole world for all goods.

Come on, refusing to acknowledge defeat at elections is practically an American Tradition, in fact Trump's gameplane was basically Abrams gameplan of 2018. Hillary Clinton still calls her defeat a steal, there have been literally hundreds of refusals to concede in US history, running back from the guy who lost to Wilson (can't remember his name but took nearly a month to concede).

Again, for someone who claims to like nuance, you are flat out ignoring it here and treating very different things as equal. Maybe look into all the controversies surrounding the election Abrams ran in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Georgia_gubernatorial_election#Electoral_controversies

As a summary:
- Kemp was secretary of state whilst also running as a candidate. He was overseeing the election he was running in. He refused to step down to avoid a conflict of interest.
- Mass voter purges occurred in the lead up to the election. These purges overwhelmingly hit black (and therefore Democrat) voters, with legal experts saying it represented on of the largest mass disenfranchisements in US history.
- 200 polling places, predominantly in Democrat areas, were closed.

Abrams was likely wrong however there was clear conflict of interest and, if nothing else, the appearance of impropriety in that election. Clinton conceded very soon after the results and has never claimed the election itself was rigged. Her complaints have been around the FBI announcing they were investigating her but not announcing they were also investigating Trump at the time. Polling shows that FBI announcement was a clear swing.

Did Trump have 4 chiefs of staff? Obama had 5 didn't he? I'll go check. Yup...

1. Rahm Emanuel: 2009–2010
2. Pete Rouse: 2010–2011
3. Bill Daley: 2011–2012
4. Jack Lew: 2012–2013
5. Denis McDonough: 2013–2017

Isn't Trump's chief record 3 over 2 years?

Again, where is your nuance?
Rahm Emanuel - Left to run for mayor of Chicago and due to a series of conflicts with various members of the staff, not just the president
Rouse - Was only ever an acting chief of staff
Daley - Had said from the beginning he was only there until Obama won re-election then was going home to Chicago.
Lew - Stayed within the administration as treasury secretary afterwards
McDonough - Stayed until the end.

Whilst for Trump:
Priebus - Forced out of the administration and became the shortest serving chief of staff. Known to have criticised Trump, calling him an "idiot"
Kelly - Forced out of the administration. Kelly said he supported Trump being removed from office using the 25th amendment and that Trump was directly responsible for Jan 6th.
Mulvaney - Only acting. Was involved in the blackmail of Ukraine and Covid denialism.
Meadows - Stayed until the end and was involved in Jan 6th conspiracies.

So Obama had 5, one being acting makes 4. Of those 4, one left to pursue another political path, one said they were only there to get to the next election and one stayed within the administration in another high profile role. Whereas Trump forced out his first 2 and they both had bad things to say about him. The ones he kept were both heavily involved in offenses that led to his impeachment. So to survive in the Trump Whitehouse, you needed to be engaged in impeachable acts.

So you see, all of these behaviours are incredibly common, your just being told this is the new Hitler, despite a huge amount of these behaviours being common place.

No they are not common. You also didn't mention that Obama had 5 (4 permanent) over 8 years, Trump has had 5 over 4.5 years. Obama had one that lasted 4 years, Trump's longest serving one lasted just 1 year 155 days. The average is about 1 every 2 years or so, Trump is averaging twice that.

Had social media been around in the 90s, I guarantee you both Clinton and Bush would have been called the new Hitlers, Obama got it a little bit, with the ridiculous birther stupidity, but Trump is the first real president of the social media era to live by the sword and get it down by the sword.

Obama didn't get "A little bit" with the birther stupidity, he got it a LOT. Do you remember who one of the biggest pushers of the birther claim was? Trump. He was engaged in the social media bullshit before he became president.

All this catastrophising isn't helping, your scaring each other on things that just aren't happening, reciting bad faith information you know is bad faith but want to be true so badly.

So Jan 6th didn't happen? His 60 court cases against the election didn't happen? His blackmailing of Ukraine and now siding with the Russians didn't happen? His illegal retention of classified information didn't happen? His apathy at death threats being made by a mob at his vice president didn't happen? Overturning Roe vs Wade didn't happen? Him being granted broad immunity to break the law didn't happen? The deportation without and due process and ignoring the courts didn't happen? These things ARE happening. I remember prior to Trump losing the election I said he would not accept the result gracefully nor go quietly. I was told that was hyperbole and yet look what happened. What's bad faith is acting like what is happening under Trump is no different to anyone else.

I've been very consistent, when Trump does something stupid I criticise it, when a poster here publishes Russian stripper urinating style stupidity I call it out. Why does it seem like I'm calling out more than agreeing with?

Frequently now you're not though, you are explaining away a lot of his actions as being completely normal, with no regard to context or scale. Considering how much you say you like nuance, I find it baffling that you think the case of him illegally withholding the most classified information the US has and then being let off by a judge he appointed precisely for her partisanship is just another day in the office in the USA. Under normal circumstances, Nixon was pushed out. What Trump did vastly exceeds what Nixon did and nothing has happened. It is NOT normal so stop saying it is.

 

[dirty harry]

Remember. He's only here to argue.

I'm here to correct falsehoods, I agree with accurate statements and post...

 

[dirty harry]

Every president challenges the constitution. ******* lol. This is why people say you're bad faith.

Name me a president who hasn't challenged the constitution?

Answer if your a constitutional purist, you agree with every amendment?

 

[Welsh Exile]

Name me a president who hasn't challenged the constitution?

Answer if your a constitutional purist, you agree with every amendment?

Jesus Christ. I’m not taking about “challenging” the constitution (whatever the **** that means) I’m talking specifically about instigating an insurrection, calling for the constitution to be suspended, and engaging in a FAKE ELECTOR PLOT to try and overturn a legitimate election result.

If you want to boil that down to “challenging the constitution” and every president does it then I don’t know what to say. But yeah, this is very bad faith.

 

[dirty harry]

I don't think he believes half the **** he says to be honest. He's proud of the fact he's a contrarian.

Thisnis a lie, I acknowledged I'm a bit of a contrarian, but we should all be, instead of accepting everything everyone tells you.

I was given advice by a very smart family member of mine about 20 years ago:

'Just because someone puts something in your mouth, it doesn't mean you have to swallow it'

Consider that the next time you read the Trump section of the Daily Beast.

I know you guys know thisnis not a healthy chamber for discussion, the very sight of disagreeing is leading to name calling, what does that tell you?

 

[dirty harry]

Every president challenges the constitution. ******* lol. This is why people say you're bad faith.

You see why this comment of yours, contradicts your current stance above?

 

[Welsh Exile]

You see why this comment of yours, contradicts your current stance above?

Well don’t keep me in suspense. It’s killing me.

 

[Welsh Exile]

Thisnis a lie, I acknowledged I'm a bit of a contrarian, but we should all be, instead of accepting everything everyone tells you.

I was given advice by a very smart family member of mine about 20 years ago:

'Just because someone puts something in your mouth, it doesn't mean you have to swallow it'

Consider that the next time you read the Trump section of the Daily Beast.

I know you guys know thisnis not a healthy chamber for discussion, the very sight of disagreeing is leading to name calling, what does that tell you?

You seem proud of your contrarian nature. It's disagreeing for the sake of it with no real substance and you hardly engage with actual facts or reality. Bit like your constant defence of Gatland when we were losing every game.